PC foul?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where does it say in the rulebook anything about "Trying to avoid contact while going airborne?" If you can show that to me, then maybe that would make some sense. That makes no sense what so ever. He jumped too early to make an attempt to block or obstruct the shot. He was not in a legal position and the ball handler noticed that he was about to get jumped into and made a legal move. Again, show me a rules reference and do not tell me what you just think?

Peace

You misquoted me by adding "while going airborne" to my statement. My statement has to do with when does he lose/gain LGP. The rule says nothing about having to be in front of a shooter to obtain LGP, only that both feet are touching the playing court and guard's torso must be facing the opponent. It doesn't say anything about which way the shooter is facing.

I would say he lost LGP when he stepped out of bounds but reobtained it when both feet are on the ground just before he jumps. 4-23-1-c says he can move laterally, obliquely provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Defender was moving to a spot IN FRONT of opponent, not toward opponent. The shooter moved into the defender's path.

Now you post to me why the defender was not in a legal position.

[Adam]

When contact occurred, he was moving towards the shooter.

The question to me is whether screening rules or guarding rules take precedence.

I'm inclined to side with guarding rules here since B7 was clearly guarding and attempting to guard A1. If B had been standing directly in front of Love and jumped first, towards Love, I don't think we'd be discussing this so long.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

When contact occurred, he was moving towards the shooter.

The question to me is whether screening rules or guarding rules take precedence.

I'm inclined to side with guarding rules here since B7 was clearly guarding and attempting to guard A1. If B had been standing directly in front of Love and jumped first, towards Love, I don't think we'd be discussing this so long.

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender? If the shooter goes straight are we sure contact would have happened?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender? If the shooter goes straight are we sure contact would have happened?

No, it wouldn't have, but the defender jumped horizontally in an attempt to guard the shooter. It's not necessarily about who initiates contact?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, it wouldn't have, but the defender jumped horizontally in an attempt to guard the shooter. It's not necessarily about who initiates contact?

And Love jumps sideways, not forward. In this particular case he caused the contact.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Doesn't contact occur because the shooter jumped into the defender?

Yes. But the defender doesn't have LGP, nor verticality, and is airborne. It seems like some posters are stuck on that part, but in my mind, it doesn't matter in this case. It's simply a smart and effective play by the shooter. I personally don't think it's that difficult. It's as though we're discussing a Stockton-esque play where the shooter who is jumping sideways into either a stationary or vertical defender and drawing the foul. We're not. This defender does not have LGP, and has no right to land when meeting the airborne shooter is on a path that intersects with his path.

Someone recently posted a baseline drive and contact play that is completely analagous. I could think up about 20 other analogies where the same thing is happening. They're all fouls on the defender. And they'd all be called fouls on the defender, I'm betting, in-game, by officials at all levels.

..Also, "IMO" all over the place, here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

You misquoted me by adding "while going airborne" to my statement. My statement has to do with when does he lose/gain LGP. The rule says nothing about having to be in front of a shooter to obtain LGP, only that both feet are touching the playing court and guard's torso must be facing the opponent. It doesn't say anything about which way the shooter is facing.

I would say he lost LGP when he stepped out of bounds but reobtained it when both feet are on the ground just before he jumps. 4-23-1-c says he can move laterally, obliquely provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs. Defender was moving to a spot IN FRONT of opponent, not toward opponent. The shooter moved into the defender's path.

Now you post to me why the defender was not in a legal position.

I did not quote your actual words. I simply was asking what rules basis for your argument. Because if that is the case then show at least one interpretation that supports your position? I doubt you will find one because when the defender is not in a LGP, they are considered to be the person that has fouled when the ball handler or shooter is involved. It would be one thing if he was vertical as a defender and the shooter jumped into him, but that is not what happen. The defender was already in a non-vertical or LGP situation and the shooter did what he has the right to do and jump in any direction. Now of the defender was in a LGP or vertical, then I would agree with you about the actions of the shooter or Kevin Love in this play. That is not what happened and not what I would call. At some point common sense also has to reign in this situation.

Peace

[rockyroad]

In the video, Love is clearly behind the 3 point line. He sees that the defender has foolishly left his feet, and then steps forward and gets the defender to land on him. Love did not need to do that, he could simply have launched his 3...but that has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for the defender, there is no rule that guarantees him the right to launch himself forward and be given leeway in making contact with the shooter. Unless the rules are changed to give the defender the same protection as an airborne shooter, this really has to be a foul on the defender.

I get it that some people don't like it...but that's the rules.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not quote your actual words. I simply was asking what rules basis for your argument. Because if that is the case then show at least one interpretation that supports your position? I doubt you will find one because when the defender is not in a LGP, they are considered to be the person that has fouled when the ball handler or shooter is involved. It would be one thing if he was vertical as a defender and the shooter jumped into him, but that is not what happen. The defender was already in a non-vertical or LGP situation and the shooter did what he has the right to do and jump in any direction. Now of the defender was in a LGP or vertical, then I would agree with you about the actions of the shooter or Kevin Love in this play. That is not what happened and not what I would call. At some point common sense also has to reign in this situation.

Peace

You still did not state why the defender does not have LGP. Please answer that question. I quoted the rule and the defender met both criteria. Next, 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position.

before this thread I would have said easy peasy foul on D. But after analyzing rules more closely, still not sure I would be correct.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

You still did not state why the defender does not have LGP. Please answer that question. I quoted the rule and the defender met both criteria. Next, 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position.

before this thread I would have said easy peasy foul on D. But after analyzing rules more closely, still not sure I would be correct.

Hmmm.

He was not in his vertical space maybe? Let us forget where the shooter is located for a second, the defender jumped forward. So the defender is already suspect at this point. When you jump forward you are not vertical according to 4-45. I would think any official that has picked up a rulebook would understand this basic rule.

And no one is denying that the Love did not jump straight up, but how often shooters do that anyway. So are you telling me if this play was at the basket and the defender jumps first and not in their vertical space, you are going to call a PC foul on the shooter that jumps forward and not in their vertical space before reaching the floor? When you say yes, then I might agree with you. And considering that we show so many plays where that very thing takes place and it is funny I have never heard anyone suggest that we call a PC foul. Heck there have even been plays where there is a blocked shot and slight body contact where the defender and the shooter make contact and no one falls to the floor and no one has ever said, "That is a PC foul because the shooter caused the contact." At some point I guess I would understand if this conversation was had before. But this just sounds silly on so many levels that a defender that bites on a fake now is somehow legal.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... Heck there have even been plays where there is a blocked shot and slight body contact where the defender and the shooter make contact and no one falls to the floor and no one has ever said...

If the defender had blocked Love's shot and then made this contact I'm sure then folks would said it should be a foul because you can't just "jump through a shooter to block a shot".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the defender had blocked Love's shot and then made this contact I'm sure then folks would said it should be a foul because you can't just "jump through a shooter to block a shot".

Yep.

+1000

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Hmmm.

He was not in his vertical space maybe? Let us forget where the shooter is located for a second, the defender jumped forward. So the defender is already suspect at this point. When you jump forward you are not vertical according to 4-45. I would think any official that has picked up a rulebook would understand this basic rule.

And no one is denying that the Love did not jump straight up, but how often shooters do that anyway. So are you telling me if this play was at the basket and the defender jumps first and not in their vertical space, you are going to call a PC foul on the shooter that jumps forward and not in their vertical space before reaching the floor? When you say yes, then I might agree with you. And considering that we show so many plays where that very thing takes place and it is funny I have never heard anyone suggest that we call a PC foul. Heck there have even been plays where there is a blocked shot and slight body contact where the defender and the shooter make contact and no one falls to the floor and no one has ever said, "That is a PC foul because the shooter caused the contact." At some point I guess I would understand if this conversation was had before. But this just sounds silly on so many levels that a defender that bites on a fake now is somehow legal.

Peace

Okay, I get your point about jumping while not in vertical plane. But what about this part: 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position. I believe this trumps the LGP part anyway as it is in the rule book before LGP.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Okay, I get your point about jumping while not in vertical plane. But what about this part: 4-23-1 states "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg, into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs." I submit that that is exactly what love did. Contact occurred before he jumped, thus not an airborne shooter. He did extend his leg and shoulder into the path of the opponent thus negating his own legal position. I believe this trumps the LGP part anyway as it is in the rule book before LGP.

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

Here is the problem I have with your point of view in this discussion. You are only focusing on one reference. You are not considering common practice, interpretation, other rules that apply to this situation. There is a reason there is an entire definition about LGP. There are no definitions as to what a ball handler must do specifically in order to be responsible for a foul. There is an airborne shooter rule that states that an airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until they reach the floor. Nothing in that rule states an airborne shooter is responsible for any contact unless the defender is in a LGP. There is no responsibility on the ball handler to move in a specific way as the rules states about the defender. This is why we say "Referee the defense" as what they do is the reason we have a foul or not have a foul.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He is still a shooter. If Love does not even shoot and moves forward and is landed on by the jumping defender, that is still a foul on defender. So this, "He caused contact with the shooter" is frankly garbage. Now I would agree that a ball handler is not absolved from all actions like doing something intentional or flagrant, but his action was not either. He was making sure he was contacted, but nothing out of the ordinary. Better yet, I guess if a ball handler is dribbling hard to the basket and the defender is not in a LGP, you would suggest well if the ball handler was not moving forward then the contact would not have taken place? Why does that change drastically when the defender is airborne?

Here is the problem I have with your point of view in this discussion. You are only focusing on one reference. You are not considering common practice, interpretation, other rules that apply to this situation. There is a reason there is an entire definition about LGP. There are no definitions as to what a ball handler must do specifically in order to be responsible for a foul. There is an airborne shooter rule that states that an airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until they reach the floor. Nothing in that rule states an airborne shooter is responsible for any contact unless the defender is in a LGP. There is no responsibility on the ball handler to move in a specific way as the rules states about the defender. This is why we say "Referee the defense" as what they do is the reason we have a foul or not have a foul.

Peace

4-1-2 "The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting." Thus even though Love was still on the floor, he is still an airborne shooter. Foul on defense. Thanks jrut. I learned a lot. My original instinct was correct but now I know WHY.